Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 115 (GAU)

Nurul Islam Laskar @ Moina Mia v. State of Assam

2015-02-03

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 24/2004 dismissing the appeal so preferred by the accused petitioner and upholding the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in G.R. Case No. 31/2001 convicting the petitioner under Sections 323, 341 and 447 IPC sentencing him to suffer S.I. for 2 (two) months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, S.I. for 10 days under Section 323 IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer imprisonment for another 10 days under Sections 341, 447 IPC. 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that on 13.01.2001 in the morning, the informant Samsul Haque Laskar was discussing with one Abdul Hasim Laskar regarding purchase of land and after the discussion, he went to Hailakandi town. When he returned to his house in the afternoon, he came to know that the accused Moni Mia Laskar entered into the house of Abdul Hasim and assaulted him, causing injuries to him. While he was talking with Abdul Hasim, the accused charged him with an intent to assault him. The accused also threatened him. 3. The written FIR was filed by Samsul Haque before the Officer-in-Charge of Hailakandi Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered and after completion of investigation Charge-Sheet was filed against the accused Nurul Islam Laskar, the present petitioner under Sections 447, 341, 323 IPC. 4. The learned Trial Court examined 5 witnesses including the eye witness and M.O. Defence examined one witness and took the plea of total denial. On conclusion of the trial, the court found the accused petitioner guilty under Sections 341/447/323 of the IPC and convicted him accordingly as stated above. 5. Against the judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Hailakandi and the learned District Judge affirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Magistrate. Hence, this revision. 6. The revision petitioner assailed the judgment of the learned Trial Court and the appellate Court in all aspects. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner. Hence, this revision. 6. The revision petitioner assailed the judgment of the learned Trial Court and the appellate Court in all aspects. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, led me go through the evidence of the witnesses and submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and no illegality have been committed by the learned District Judge by affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 7. I have carefully perused the evidence adduced by the witnesses as well as the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge. Record reveals that on 13.01.2001 at about 2.30 PM, PW1 returned to his house from Hailakandi town. At that time, PW2, mother of Abdul Hussain informed him that the accused assaulted Abdul Hussain. On hearing this PW1 proceeded towards the house of Abdul Hussain. By this time, the accused armed with dao, appeared before him and threatened him with dire consequences and out of fear he came back to his house. He noticed the injuries on the person of Abdul Hussain and he was informed that the accused petitioner assaulted him with a lathi. The injured was taken to the hospital. 8. Written FIR was lodged. It has been duly proved and in the FIR the date, time and the manner of commission of the offence has been clearly spelt out and there is nothing to suspect embellishment. The evidence of the informant is corroborated by the injured witness PW3 and the Medical Officer, PW4 and they have given consent and uniform version. The medical officer found injuries on the person of PW3 and his evidence shows that he sustained simple injuries caused by blunt object. 9. On perusal of the entire evidence, I have found that the defence failed to dislodge the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness as there is nothing on record to hold that the witnesses were inimical to the accused petitioner. They have no axe to grind against him. That being the position, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and sentence passed by the learned District Judge and the same stands affirmed. The revision is dismissed. Send down the LCR with copy of the judgment for necessary action.